|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis "kinds" may be Nested Hierarchies. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
RAZD writes:
I think the Bible uses the word "kind" much as we do - e.g. "What kind of dog is that?" Poodles beget poodles and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs but there's no suggestion that interbreeding is impossible.
Hence the comments like "dogs will always be dogs."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
But "fixity of kinds" requires an explanation of what kinds are. What, exactly, is fixed? Poodles beget poodles after their kind and sheepdogs beget sheepdogs after their kind. Dogs are not necessarily a kind. What is fixed?
That is to say, the words, "according to their kinds" suggests a fixity of kinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
It makes no difference what Darwin did or said. The Theory of Evolution does not depend on Darwin. It has been confirmed countless times by countless people. Only ignorant creationists feel a need to personify it in the form of Darwin.
Anyways, Darwin was so out-of-it when he consumed too much hallucinogen, he couldn't remember which country he was in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Look at a bat's wing and a human hand.
What I mean is, wings are not "modified forelimbs" anymore than Tooth fairies are modified butterflies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man were disproven by the same science that you reject. You're scoffing at the science in one breath and praising it in the next.
My point is, not only was Nebraska Man fabricated on the basis of one tooth, that tooth was very weathered and thus hard to identify. Junk science built on junk evidence, in other words.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
You do the exercise: What would the nearest relatives of the flying pig be? What transitional fossils of mammals with six appendages would you expect to find?
In the way of an exercise, could a flying pig be fitted into a nested hierarchy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
That isn't how it works. You can't just "invent" a branch. By definition, a branch has to be connected to something. Where would you connect the flying pig? You can't just connect it to the other pigs because the other pigs only have four legs. What branch has four-legged animals with wings?
All you need to do is invent another branch on the tree - as you could do for any "new" creature (whether living or fossilized). Dredge writes:
Bats didn't grow wings out of their ribs. Have you read the thread at all? Their forelimbs adapted into wings while our forelimbs adapted into arms with grasping hands, whales' forelimbs adapted into swimming fins and pigs' forelimbs adapted into legs for walking on all fours. They're all the same forelimbs adapted to different environments.
We didn't didn't know there were mammals that grew wings out their ribs....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
CRR writes:
Presumably your "etc." includes fiction.
... the Bible obviously contains: Poetry, Parables, Prophecy, Letters, Biography, History, Wisdom, etc. CRR writes:
The style and content of Genesis 1 and 2 make it quite clear that the authors did not intend to describe nested hierarchies.
The author’s intention with respect to any book of the Bible is usually quite clear from the style and the content.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
No, that isn't how it works. It's called a "nested hierarchy" for a reason. The fossils we have DO form a nested hierarchy and any new fossils we find DO fit into it. If a flying pig fossil was found, it would NOT fit into the nested hierarchy.
Even though their are no fossils or remains found yet for such a creature, you assume it must have existed and fill in the "gap" to the flying pig with a provisional branch until the evidence shows up. Dredge writes:
Certainly not. You haven't shown even the slightest rudimentary understanding of the topic. Trusting you would be like trusting a three-year-old to fly an Airbus.
Trust me.... Dredge writes:
There's a difference between missing limbs and extra limbs. Do you understand the difference between addition and subtraction? It's easier to lose what you already have than to get something you never had.
There exist humans with arms and legs missing - how do you think these people fit into a nested hierarchy? Dredge writes:
You're no judge of what's possible. How do you explain the similarity between a bat's wing and a human hand?
Forelimbs don't evolve into fins and wings - it's impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say beetles.
If we didn't have Bombardier beetles roaming about, no one would believe they ever existed.Speaking of which, I wonder what nested hierarchy they fit into?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Sure it does. Who told you that nonsense? You should at least look it up before making a fool of yourself.
A bombardier beetle has no evolutionary history (unsurprisingly)....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
We're not talking about different buildings. We're talking about the difference between a terrestrial machine and a flying machine. Designers don't use the same frame for a bulldozer and an airplane.
ringo writes:
Very easily - a common designer. Notice how very different buildings can have very similar design features. How do you explain the similarity between a bat's wing and a human hand? Dredge writes:
Nope. You're wrong again. Evolutionists do talk about the differences. Look at the difference between a bat's wing and a bird's wing and an insect's wing. They have all evolved in different ways from different origins to adapt to the same purpose.
Incidentally, it's interesting that evolutionists are quick to point out similarities between certain creatures, but are rather slow when it comes to considering the differences.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024